[Advanced Creation Science]
I am great supporter of Barry Setterfield’s work. See www.Setterfield.org
Part of advancing the his work involves exposing it to scientific criticism. Though facing criticism may be difficult, if a theory is true, it will prevail in the end.
With that in mind, I present the hard work of two scientists (Jellison and Bridgman) who have written a critique of an idea I really like, namely CDK. I do not expect the discussion to be settled anytime soon, and the work of these two scientists is worthy of consideration. I’d like to thank them for making their work available online. The issues here could take years to settle, and I think it unfair to Barry to make any demands he respond anytime soon.
I must sadly assert, rather than condemning Old-Earth Creationists as being compromisers or finding flaws in OEC theology, it would be far more productive (for science and the cause of the gospel, if indeed CDK is true) to solve scientific problems such as the ones outlined by Dr. Jellison. For as long as these scientific problems linger, there will be those who will accept an Old Universe, and I for one can’t blame them…..
Though Dr. Jellison and I disagree intensely, I would like to thank him for his care and hard work on the issue, and his very civil demeanor. If one firmly believes in YEC and that Barry has a chance of being correct, then one ought to pray for Barry and supporters of his work. And also importantly, if one has scientific insight, by all means join the exploration.
Dr. Jellison’s critique can be found at: Critique of CDK. I would ask we respect Dr. Jellison’s privacy and that discussion be focused on the questions he poses.
This thread will not be the last time his work is featured. I will try to put a place on the new website where it can be discussed and where Latex can be used to present mathematical ideas. In the interim, I’m simply posting this to make available.
I would like to encourage Barry Setterfield to not be pressured to comment immediately. Public exposure of the theory will generate interest and get creationists with physics backgrounds involved and contributing to the discussion. Further, I’d like to assure Barry, he has friends he may not be aware of who may be willing to help with his work. I hope they will visit this site and help out. If CDK is correct, I think the Intelligent Designer will ensure that it will be vindicated as that was ordained from the beginning of time….
I’d like to thank Barry Setterfield, Gerard Jellison, Stephen Cheesman for their participation here at YoungCosmos. I recognize that surely at least one of you must be wrong, and that entails even the very hard work at least one you have put forward will be eventually falsified. I can’t thank you all enough for each of you volunteering hours of your personal time to exploration of these very important topics.
Dr. Jellison: Please feel free to include in your review/paper the ideas and issues I’ve just raised in regards to globular cluster orbits about the galaxy, as well as stars orbiting inside globular clusters, both movements which have now been directly measured astrometrically, and whose apparent periods would be seriously affected by CDK. It would be good to compile all these related issues in one place. I’m not about to publish them myself, or “use” them elsewhere, and all could be much more fully developed.
An interesting critique apart from a pervasive attitude revealed in such an exaggerated comment as this on page 31:
“The work of ‘creation scientists’ is always wrong, because they are trying to prove something that isn’t true.”
Nevertheless, “Newton…along with most everyone else at the time,…accepted Bishop Usher’s 4004 B. C. date for creation.”
http://www.lucasianchair.org/newton.html
——————————-
Also on page 31:
“We can trust the testimony of our senses, and the extension of our senses provided by technology. The Hubble Space Telescope has shown us images of distant galaxies – images made by capturing photons that have been traveling for billions of years. The Universe really is that old.”
It seems to me that this statement overlooks “entanglement,” something that has been known for some time about the Universe at the quantum level.
With the entanglement of particles, including photons, non-locality (superluminal information transfer) appears to be very real. Various experiments have reportedly violated the assumption of locality upon which the above statement about trusting our senses depends, including experiments with entangled photons.
“Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is only a “paradox” because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality.”
“The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a “measurement” can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
If in Genesis 1:3 God created all the photons of the vast Universe in an entangled state then perhaps many of the photons we observe here on earth actually bear information received non-locally, instantaneously, from entangled photons at the far reaches of the Universe. If true, then these photons may not have been traveling for billions of years, and the Universe may not “really” be that old. Nor is there need of a photon velocity faster than the current speed of light.
How does quantum entanglement work? No mortal yet knows, or at least they haven’t published.
In Genesis God creates light and then observes the light. Perhaps that is the first hint of an infinite, omniscient “Superobserver” of quantum events who collapses quantum wave functions of the Universe according to His will.
Best Regards
Benkeshet,
Please accept my apologies for the spam buffer holding up your comment. I really don’t know what triggers it….
I agree this unfortunately detracts from the strength of the argument. I would presume, that this statement is here because the target audience is not creationists. That said, I feel Dr. Jellison has shown effort in trying to be restrained. I think all of us have been frustrated at each other, but I appreciate his effort to try to stick to the science.
Note to the readers,
I would encourage a careful critique of Dr. Jellison’s work rather than quick dismissals or speculations. Speculations are important, but before we make speculations, let’s examine his math and ideas as they are.
A proper critique entails first of all assessing what Setterfield has written and then seeing if Dr. Jellison has accurately represented it. There are mathematical subtleties one must be aware of which may lead to one easily misinterpreting the equations and consequences of CDK. I think there are few of these in Dr. Jellison’s paper, but we have to look at the matter carefully and discussion openly. I will write on these as I have time….
Dr. Jellison asked me to review the article and forward what I thought were corrections. I felt it would be more productive to have the discussion out in the open where others could participate and contribute expertise in math and physics.
Let me offer some mathematical observations off the top, and it can be developed further. First of all what is the cause of redshift. It is my opinion the cause is the slowing of the speed of light.
c(t) = speed of light as a function of time
h(t) = planks constant as a function of time
K = some constant = c(t)h(t) = c(t1) h(t1) = c(t2) h(t2)
nu(t) = photon frequency as a function of time
E = photon energy = h(t) nu(t)
E is constant via 1st law of thermodynamics
t1 < t2 means t2 is a later time than t1
if h(t1) < h(t2) according to c-decay
this implies
nu(t1) > nu (t2) which implies a red shift.
You will see an allusion to this in his revised arguments:
http://www.setterfield.org/behaviorzpe3.html
I welcome disucssion of this.
Regarding Dr. Jellison’s critique of the Boltzman distribution, I would submit there are several aspects to this.
It would appear at first glance that CDK would fall apart because of the problem Dr. Jellison highlighted, however, one to be careful with
the notion of a changing m(t). The m in the distribution is relative to
the mass of other objects in the universe. If the bodies involved in a
collision are proportionally changing in mass the same way, the mass
change will not be apparent by observing velocity changes. It will look as if m(t) = constant.
Barrow, in his book on the constants of nature pointed out the peculiar fact that global changes in constants would be undetectable to the extent when everything changes together. This is a good example.
One must therefore be careful with using existing equations and what
they really signify! m(t) varying with the speed of light may not mean what one thinks it means when trying to relate it to traditional equations!
Thus, one should be careful when trying to grab equations from existing
literature an attempt to make a quick refutation of CDK.
This does not mean CDK is out of the water since we are not merely dealing with issues of dynamical changes of momentum (in the classical sense) through collisions. We must also deal with the fact that classically forces acting on a changing m(t) must also globally change, such as the coloumb force:
F = k q1 q2/ r^2
CDK accounts for this with an increasing q1 and q2. A similar argument must be made for the forces attributable to magnetic phenomena (I seem to recall a physics teach calling this a Lorentz force, is this correct, I’m a bit rusty on Maxwell’s equations).
Any way, this discussion, I expect will go on for a long time. I welcome serious mathematical and physical analysis.
[...] [Advanced Creation Science] I’m opening this thread for a more detailed and mathematically rigorous discussion of the Boltzman distribution objection to CDK. This a critique of paper by Dr. Jellison introduced here. I welcome civil, academic discussion and civil treatment of the subject matter. I thank the participants in advance for their restraint in holding back their frustrations with each other. The discussion will move forward as we stick to the facts and theories. [...]
[...] This discussion is tied to issues raised in Jellison and Bridgeman, which can be found: here [...]
Please Note:
ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!
Salvador